Developer and Financier Survey
Introduction
Developer and Financier Research: survey responses from developers and financiers to assess price sensitivities of language used in contract agreements
Due to the exploratory nature of this research, Solstice intends to leave analyses associated with the developer and financier component of this research unstructured in part. As a result of the expected small sample size, described in more detail below, we do not expect to be able to test for significance between observations. Rather, this analysis will be conducted through a detailed analysis of primary data collected via survey responses. Absence of existing published data detailing limiting factors and decision points related to constructing community solar subscriber agreements makes it difficult to establish a baseline in order to conduct hypotheses-generated analyses as outlined in previous sections. This research takes a grounded theory approach to construct theory through primary data collection and subsequent comparative analysis.
Average program terms
- What is the average savings rate offered by developers and financiers within their community solar programs?
- Do savings rates offered by different community solar developers and financiers?
- What are average term length offered by developers and financiers within their community solar programs?
- Do cancellation clauses offered by developers and financiers within their community solar programs?
- What is the average subscriber contract page length offered by developers and financiers within their community solar programs?
Further,
- Do economic/financing factors influence developers and financiers to structure community solar subscriber contracts?
- Under what conditions are developers willing to adjust their programmatic terms to include LMI populations in their programs?
The primary outcome of this research will be collecting and analyzing average terms used by solar developers and financiers in existing community solar contracts. The secondary outcome of the survey responses from developers and financiers will be measured by variables suggested to influence and limit offerings for existing community solar products.
Methods
There were 254 unique responses.
Results
Descriptive Statistics
Savings Rates
34.4% of respondents marked savings rate from 0-10%; 33% recorded 11-15%, and 32.5% answered 16-50%. Hence, nearly two-thirds of respondents recorded over 10% for savings rate for community solar.
Term Length
Cancellation Fee
Factors: Ability to make CS accessibility to LMI
CAC
Churn
Default
Communication
LMI ID
Financing
Takeaways
Customer aqcuisition costs (CAC) was the strongest factor, with 55.5% responding as either very or extremely important.
Defaults were relatively less important, nearly a quarter (23.6%) responding that it was either not at all or slightly important. When compared to threat of churn, respondents shifted from slightly to moderately important, implying that churn is more of a concern compared to default.
Bar Charts
Factors: Influence decision to include LMI in projects
Policy
Community Interest
Financier Interest
Company Interest
Equity
Takeaways
For factors influencing the decision to include LMI households in CS projects, the most common answer was policy requirements and equity/inclusion efforts, with 63% and 58% or respondents marking these as very or extremely important, respectively.
Community interest exhibited a large degree of moderate importance, with 44.7% of respondents, whereas only 43% respondents marked it as either very or extremely important, the smallest proportion exhibited in each of the five questions.
Bar Charts
Factors: Fill out CS Projects Quickly
Savings rate
Term length
Cancel fee
No On-bill credit
On-bill credit
Contract complex
Trust
Takeaways
- presence of on-bill credit for community solar projects exhibited the strongest positive response, with 58% of respondents recording it as probably or definitely impacted speed of CS projects being completed.
- Conversely, though marginally different, contract complexity and trust were the least powerful, with 17.6% and 19% of respondents, respectively, stating it either probably not or definitely did not have an effect on projects being quickly filled out.
Bar Charts
Savings Rate for Market and LMI
Churn Rate for Market and LMI
Project stage by highest churn/default
COD = commerical operational date (?)
Loan Loss Reserve
Alleviate Risk
Ideal Loan Loss Reserve
Summary statistics for loan loan reserve, percentage of total project revenue:
## Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max.
## 3.00 20.00 34.00 36.87 50.00 100.00
Summary statistics for loan loan reserve, percentage of total years covered:
## Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max.
## 1.000 2.000 5.000 9.132 7.000 70.000
Respondent Map
Coordinates have been obfuscated to protect location.